Don Mikulecky (http://views.vcu.edu) writes:
"It seems clear that the meta-system only relates to its constituent
subsystems as a substrate for its own existence. If it were a machine,
for example, this would be very different. The metasystems would arise
from its parts in a clear, specified way. In the case of other
entities which differ from machines, the relation to parts is quickly
lost in favor of an expression of "function". These functions are
expressible
as mapping between the constituent entities mot as individual parts but
as collections. Thus the Meta-system quickly takes on its own character
and looses most of the detailed structure of the substrate.
The functions are best ennumerated by asking questions like
"why is there a meta-system at all?"....."why do the recocognizable
attributes
of the meta system exist....why did they arise?" "
I am suggesting that there is in social/cultural systems an equally 'clear
and specified way' in which the meta-system arises. One in which the
relation (of the meta-system) to the parts (constituent systems) is quite
specific and which equally precisely defines the 'character' of the
meta-system. The key to this which I mentioned in my previous posting lies
in the nature of the communicational processes which exist between (lets
call them sub-systems) and that these are essentially alogarithmic and
rule-based. That is the recursive application of a selection-combination
alog to the diversity of forms which exist and which define the character of
the sub-systems. This kind of DYNAMIC CLASSIFICATION will (in my view
automatically or spontaneously (?)) group those forms into similarities
(probabilities) and differences (circumstantial variations and from the
point of view of the emergent meta-system: random characteristics). The
whole issue for me revolves around the INTEGRATION which takes place as an
effect of communication between systems at the same organizational level.
Don says: "Thus the Meta-system quickly takes on its own character and
looses most of the detailed structure of the substrate". Yes, this is true,
but I am suggesting that one can be more specific in this sense we can say
that the 'loss of detail' is in fact a LOSS OF DIVERSITY of form. (The
random / circumstantial characteristics mentioned above. The different ways
of doing the same thing). What is left is the most recurrent + probable and
specialized forms and it is this which precisely defines the character of
the emergent meta-system.
As to: "why is there a meta-system at all?". The answer must be from my
point of view: the effects of communication between groups in a relatively
stable environment which will allow continuity of exchange between systems.
And as to: ."why do the recocognizable attributes of the meta system
exist....why did they arise?" Because of the nature of the communicational
processes which classify the characteristics of the constituent systems.
They will automatically produce a definite set of highly probable (relative
to the original group) set of forms. As I said in my previous posting. If
you want to see the meta-system, look for the (increasing) similarities
between the constituent systems.
regards from Singapore
Alex Brown